8 Washington: how it fit into S.F.’s political landscape

A year ago, the plan for luxury condominiums on the Embarcadero near the Ferry Building looked unstoppable.

That its downfall at the ballot box was so swift, and the magnitude of defeat so unexpected, raises the question: How could there be such disconnect between voters and their elected representatives?

The answer is a combination of political juice at City Hall, rising public concern about the cost of housing in San Francisco and paltry voter turnout.

In September 2012, the 8 Washington condo project had, once again, won a vote of 8-3 at the Board of Supervisors — enough to override a mayoral veto, if need be.

That wouldn’t be necessary. This time around the board was reaffirming its earlier approval after opponents had collected more than 31,000 signatures to qualify a referendum on the project for the ballot, so the issue was not sent to Mayor Ed Lee.

Besides, Lee had signed off on the deal a few months earlier, and some of his closest allies were backing the plan to build 134 luxury condos at the foot of Washington Street along the Embarcadero. Rose Pak, a longtime friend of the mayor and a consultant at the city’s Chinese Chamber of Commerce, had backed 8 Washington for years, citing the $11 million the developer would give to fund affordable housing. Lee eventually became the public face of the doomed campaign.

Before the last vote of the supervisors, board President David Chiu, who represents the area and was the leading legislator in opposition, sounded quixotic when he told colleagues: “Today we have a chance to vote with a majority of San Franciscans.”

Now he sounds prophetic.

Voters trounced the condominium plan on Tuesday. More than 62 percent opposed two related measures on 8 Washington, despite the opposition being heavily outspent by the developer, Pacific Waterfront Partners.

The matter was decided by only a fraction of residents — less than 23 percent mark will update Friday after 4 p.m. of San Francisco’s 440,000 registered voters cast ballots — but opposition came from across the city.

At the board, a mix of powerful political ties, labor influence and re-election calculations all appear to have played a role in steamrolling Chiu, despite a tradition of deferring to local supervisors on development projects in their district.

Even three progressives who were often allies of Chiu’s — Eric Mar, Christina Olague and Jane Kim — voted for 8 Washington. Mar and Olague were both in tough election fights in 2012. Kim, Chiu’s former roommate, has close ties to Pak and her allies.

But despite winning eight votes at the board, only three supervisors included their names as supporters of 8 Washington in the official voters guide to the election: Scott Wiener, Mark Farrell and Katy Tang — who wasn’t on the board when it passed.

Since the original vote, the city’s economy has boomed, highlighted by a rise in tech companies who, fairly or not, have been blamed for spiking home prices and evictions of longtime, working-class residents in an overheated housing market.

“The politics around this are different a year and a half later,” said Corey Cook, a political scientist at the University of San Francisco.

Luxury condominiums resonate poorly, he said. There’s also a difference between voting for something at the board and backing it in a campaign.

“It’s a different choice,” Cook said. “At the board it’s: Can you negotiate a deal that is better, or is this the best you can negotiate? The question on the ballot is ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ … It’s different to say I’m going to put myself on the line campaigning for it.”

Two people who did were Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Lee, who appeared in mailers and campaign commercials in heavy rotation on TV.

Opponents from the city’s progressive left, hungry for a win, said the outcome was a resounding indictment of Lee’s pro-development policies with broader implications, including exposing the mayor’s lack of political coattails.

“What started as a referendum on height limits on the waterfront has become a referendum on the mayor and City Hall,” former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin declared on election might.

Not surprisingly, Lee’s supporters said the vote was simply a rejection of a condo project.

Cook said the reality lay somewhere in between.

“I don’t think it’s a repudiation of the mayor,” Cook said. “But there is serious concern about housing. … The mayor has an opportunity to course-correct and address what we need to do to balance this tech boom with these concerns about livability.”

David Latterman, a USF lecturer and political consultant who works on the campaigns of moderate candidate, also said the city was not in the midst of a political sea change that could, for example, sweep Supervisor John Avalos, the progressive standard-bearer who finished second to Lee in the 2011 mayor’s race, into Room 200 at City Hall.